|
|
|
|
|
|
by jrowen
1802 days ago
|
|
|
IMO, we draw the line based on effectiveness, not idealized morality. What's going to be easier: a never-ending campaign of trying to educate and motivate millions of different average Joes to properly recycle [some item], or simply legally preventing those items from being created by a few centralized sources (or requiring them to take responsibility in some other way)? Same thing with with 2008 sub-prime mortgage crisis. A lot of people will say "well they shouldn't have taken those loans." Yes, true, but it would have been much easier if they were never allowed to be offered in the first place. Some people are against the "save the people from themselves" mentality, but it really seems to be a lot more effective and there's not a strong argument for allowing practices that are likely to result in average Joes taking deleterious actions. |
|
|
A huge chunk of judicial history is about just this issue. It’s a lot more effective to just throw all accused in jail without a trial: you’re likely to get all the accused (effective) but you’re also likely to round up as many innocent people (immoral).
Society came together and decided that the morality of locking up an innocent person was so obscene that the prosecution would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that someone was guilty.
It’s ok for everyone to come together and admit we have a tragedy of commons that needs collective action, but I think this incredible willingness to hand-wave individual responsibility is really concerning these days.